Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-13 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION March 13, 2018 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 13, 2018 Regular Meeting. 2. February 27, 2018 Study Session. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00154 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601 Washington Street OWNER/APPLICANT: South Ashland Business Park LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street. Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City E-1; ASSESSOR VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council would hear a staff update on the Croman Mill area during their Study Session March 5, 2018. The legislative action and Comprehensive Plan amendment for 475 East Nevada were tentatively scheduled for the Council Meeting March 20, 2018. At this time, there was nothing scheduled for the Planning Commission Study Session February 27, 2018. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Chair Pearce met with the Wildfire Lands Committee two weeks ago. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman had revised the draft ordinance. It could possibly go on the agenda for the Study Session February 27, 2018. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. January 9, 2018 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02129, 475 East Nevada Street. The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter. Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-02129, 475 East Nevada Street. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 1 of 6 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Jorge Yant A continued public hearing from December 12, 2017 to review an application for a DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales in the existing building located at 181 A St. The applicant withdrew the previously proposed Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) located at 185, 191 and 195 A St and as a result, the indoor grow is no longer a part of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Mindlin, Brown, Norton, and Thompson declared no ex parte contact regarding the matter. Commissioner Miller and Chair Pearce had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact, had an additional site visit, read the article in the newspaper and asked the City Attorney clarifying questions. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the planning action was a continuation of the public hearing that occurred December 12, 2017. The property was zoned E-1 except across Oak Street where it was zoned R-2. It was in the Historic District Overlay, the Detail Site Review Zone, and the Residential Overlay. The applicant withdrew the indoor marijuana production. At this time, the request was for a marijuana retail sales establishment and subject to the Marijuana Related Business Special Use Standards, Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.190.B, and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) criteria in AMC 18.5.4.050.A. The retail sales area was 1,850 square feet (sq. ft.). Issues identified at the Public Hearing December 12, 2017, included: Traffic Generation: Does the application demonstrate there is no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area from proposed marijuana retail sales use compared to the target use of general office? Performance of nearby intersections. o Daily traffic generation - not just the PM Peak Hour traffic. o Pedestrian and bicycle travel. o Residential Buffer: Measurement of the required 200 feet from a residential zone to the marijuana retail sales establishment Interior door. o The applicant submitted a revised application that consisted of the following: Production (Indoor Grow) withdrawn from the application. Revised Findings. An Intersection evaluation of A Street/Oak Street/Van Ness Avenue suggested striping the center line on Oak Street, lighting the crosswalk and removing an existing driveway apron on the Oak Street frontage. Letter from Mark Bartholomew regarding the measurement of the 200-foot buffer. The Public Works Department Engineering Division reviewed the materials. The revised Findings indicated a 5% increase in traffic on A Street. They compared it to the traffic counts in 2003 when the building was used as the A Street Market Place and added 5% to that amount. It resulted in 200 more vehicles on A Street. Staff agreed with the Findings in the engineering study and supported the changes recommended by the engineer. The City Attorney reviewed information submitted regarding the 200-foot buffer and agreed with the conclusions and reasoning in the letter. When they measure to the marijuana retail sales, they should measure from the residential Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 6 zoning boundary to the use itself. He thought the definition of premises in the Special Use Standards regarding Marijuana Related B interior door. It did affect the measurement of the 200-foot buffer. Outstanding Issues included: Target Use Comparison: Does the application demonstrate there is no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area from proposed marijuana retail sales use compared to the target use of general office? Information regarding future impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel was limited. Transportation capacity and development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. There was a certain amount of capacity in the transportation system. Every review for a conditional use looked at how much transportation each use would take. Marijuana retail sales generated more traffic and parking requirements than other uses. This retail use was under 2,000 square feet and would produce more trips than a 20,000 sq. ft. building used as general office. Traffic Information Daily traffic. o Nearby intersections. o Incorporation of the remainder of the building. o Residential Buffer Does the interior door shown on site plan provide access to and from the portion of the larger building o that is closer than 200 feet to the residential zone? The residential zoning line ran down the middle of Oak Street. It was 230 feet from that zoning line to the interior of the building where the retail use was located. The definition of premises basically stated everything needed for the business, including the bathrooms, had to be located in the area being measured for the use. Accessing the interior door to the common area and entry to the building on the Oak Street side was close to the residential if measured from Oak Street. Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins wanted to know if the bathroom in the common area was the only one accessible to the dispensary. Ms. Harris thought the applicant could answer where the restroom that served the retail area was located. If the bathroom was within the 200-foot buffer, they would not comply with the requirement. Ms. Harris clarified in the Detailed Site Review general office was the target use for a conditional use in the E-1 zone. When the decision maker went through the review process, they would use general office at half the size of the property. Staff recommended adding a condition to close the interior door and meet all building code requirements if there were issues with the 200-foot buffer. Ms. Harris explained they had the meeting. The submittal did not change the issues staff had with the application. The issues were operational, vehicle traffic, and adjacent property development. The Planning Commission could consider whether it was appropriate to utilize some of the valuable transportation system capacity for a small store generating relatively high traffic when other uses in the area would develop in the future. There were 43 parking spaces in the lot and the applicant needed twelve for the proposed retail use. The remaining parking spaces covered parking requirements for general office use but not permitted uses. The parking requirement was six spaces. The applicant had doubled the amount. Business owners and the property owner would work out possible parking issues in the future as businesses developed in the building. Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 6 The last sentence in the definition of premises for marijuana use in 18.2.3.190(B)(1f) Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements read, areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, Ms. Harris clarified the City used level of service to measure street capacity. Staff addressed the level of service for A Street, Van Ness Avenue, and Oak Street. They were the most heavily impacted intersections. It was a challenge to determine the material adverse effect. The focus on operational measurements of transportation systems could be narrow in scope. The transportation element and the implementing policies and land use ordinance applied to all forms of travel. Engineering information tended to focus on vehicle travel and was not a good mechanism for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Jay Harland/CSA Planning, LTD/4497 Brownridge Terrace/Medford, OR/The applicant would comply if the Planning Commission concluded the interior door needed to be closed to meet the 200-foot buffer. There were existing bathrooms in the building closer to the retail area and not restricted to the 200-foot buffer. The trip generation would be higher than the specialty retail based on the International Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. He explained the Sandow Engineering submittal stated the intersections volumes were well within the range typical for these types of intersections. There was no unusual queuing or blocking issues for this type of queuing. The math substantiating the statement was included in the submittal. The area was at a level of service B until 2028. There was adequate capacity from a throughput standpoint for the area. Kelly Sandow, the traffic engineer went out to the site and watched vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic January 16, 2018. She spotted several soft improvements to the system. One was adding stripping to Oak Street and Van Ness Avenue. Another would install better lighting for the crosswalk at A Street and Oak Street. The third suggestion would replace the curb cut with a landscaped planter strip to keep people from cutting to the other side of Van Ness Avenue. Through the approval of the project, the street improvements would benefit the transportation system. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Harland confirmed the applicant was not proposing any type of production at the site. The current lease was only for the dispensary and not cultivation. There were no plans to lease for production. The applicant had no intention to add production after the retail approval. There was a bathroom located near the retail site. It was not uncommon for tenants to share restroom facilities. Commissioner Miller expressed concerns the traffic analysis was inadequate. She thought First Street and Pioneer Street should have been included. The peak traffic for the Ashland Food Coop occurred between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. It was a one-way street with people exiting on A Street. Mr. Harland responded the traffic engineer observed traffic in that location and did not encounter anything that could cause capacity issues. Commissioner Miller noted the study occurred in January, the quietest month in town. It would be more accurate if the study happened on a spring day. Commissioner Mindlin wanted to know if they had reviewed other studies of the area. Specifically, studies that included all modes of transportation during other seasons. Community Development Director Bill Molnar added the Public Works Department had explained it was not uncommon to evaluate traffic studies this time of year. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic were also issues. Public Testimony Brian Comnes/Ashland/Reiterated Commissioner f traffic. He walked or drove through the project area daily. Where A Street, Oak Street, and Van Ness Avenue connected was confusing. He had personally Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 6 witnessed near accidents with vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. Where First Street came out to A Street, the tight made it difficult to see. Any increase in traffic due to the retail establishment in that area would increase safety risk. The rafting company frequently blocked half the street. It was not a desirable place to increase traffic. He expressed concern about the potential of people ingesting the products they just purchased then driving away impaired. He was opposed to the project and suggested the Commission oppose it as well. Robin Popin/Ashland/Was baffled to be there. She lived in the Railroad District and described the area. The Plexis building was a historic building and the area caused traffic issues. She thought that cannabis dispensaries had to be on major thoroughfares in Ashland, not small streets. She did not consider A Street a thoroughfare. The traffic was bad. It was a residential community that co-existed with commercial property. The marijuana dispensary did not belong in the neighborhood. She would be profoundly disappointed to have purchased her property if this project went through. Mr. Harland addressed traffic generation and explained the actual retail use generated less than one trip per minute. Ms. Harris shared the number of PM Peak Hour for specialty retail was 5 trips per 1,000 square feet. General office PM Peak Hour was 1.49 per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Harland added trip generation for marijuana retail was higher. Deliberations & Decision Ms. Harris confirmed Clear Creek Drive was zoned for E-1 and not in a historical district. The building for the project was a historic building but the applicants were not making any changes to the exterior. The Commission discussed how using the bathroom in the hallway would change the 200-foot buffer to the residential area on Oak Street. The applicant could access bathrooms located behind the retail site. The Commission could also place a condition on the application to permanently close the interior door. There were multiple entrances for fire exits. There was a concern whether the Oak Street door would be used as an entry. At this point, without using the hallway bathroom, the applicant complied with the 200-foot requirement. A Street was not a major street but the Comprehensive Plan allowed marijuana retail on a neighborhood collector through a conditional use permit. The Commission voted to include A Street for potential marijuana retail because the street was commercial in nature. Commissioner Mindlin did not think the applicant met the burden of proof that there was no adverse material effect based on the traffic. The proposed project would generate six times more traffic during peak hour than the specialty retail rate. There was no analysis done regarding pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The study in January did not exhibit a coherent picture of traffic impact later in the year. The Commission majority agreed the applicant had not met the burden of proof for traffic. Commissioner Dawkins disagreed and thought because this was marijuana based, it was being singled out. Current traffic issues were generated by the Ashland Food Coop and Ace Hardware. In that case, no other retail uses should be allowed in that area due to the increase in traffic. Commissioner Brown commented when the Ashland Food Coop opened at that location, no one had understood the traffic impact. Traffic was also not addressed when Ace Hardware was developed. They could not continue allowing high traffic uses in the area just because two other high traffic uses were there. Additionally, the code based the traffic for that particular building on general office use. Commissioner Norton thought the issues could have been mitigated or addressed better. Commissioner Thompson noted when the proposed use was compared to the general office use it did show material difference and impact. The other uses allowed had an effect of five per 1,000 square feet. The proposed use was 28 per 1,000, five and a half times the impact. The Commission had to take the congestion in the area and the difficulty navigating the street seriously. Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Chair Pearce observed the city engineer did not have a problem with the traffic report. He was not sure there was an adverse material effect here. However, the lack of information on traffic impacts made it hard to make a decision. The traffic report did not take into consideration bicycle and pedestrian traffic in May or June. He did not think the applicant had provided the Commission with the quality of information needed for an approval. Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to deny the application for PA-2017-01911. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Pearce, Mindlin, Brown, Norton, and Thompson, YES, Commissioner Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6-1. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 6 of 6 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES February 27, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Dennis Slattery ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a public hearing would occur at the Planning Commission meeting March 13, 2018. It was for an annexation and a site review for a business park development at Jefferson Avenue and Washington Street. At the Study Session March 27, 2018, the Commission would discuss a public hearing for the Accessory Residential Unit Standards and possibly another update regarding the Wildfire Lands Ordinance. The Tree Commission and Wildfire Mitigation Commission will have reviewed the ordinance by then. The Planning Commission meeting April 10, 2018, could have the continuation of the accessory residential unit at 232 Nutley Street. The applicant had until March 31, 2018, to request a continuance. Public Works Director Paula Brown and the Planning Division were reconvening the System Development Charge (SDC) Commission. Ms. Brown may contact Commissioner Brown to rejoin the commission. PUBLIC FORUM DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Update on Wildfire Lands Ordinance Revisions Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfires (CPAW) assessed the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. They provided recommendations and best practices. The ordinance would come back to the Planning Commission March 27, 2018, following a review by the Tree Commission and the Wildfire Mitigation Commission. The ordinance standards were broken into two broad categories. A requirement for a fire prevention and control plan, and requirements for general fuel management practices. A presentation on Wildfire Development Standards included: Fire Prevention and Control Plan Applicability Subdivisions Performance Standards Developments Land Partitions Site Design Review Not required for new single family dwellings or additions Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.1 Fire Prevention and Control Plan Submittals Similar to formal planning application plan requirements regarding: Site, building locations, drive locations, grades, hydrant locations, landscape plan. o Requires a tree and vegetation management plan: Tree Removals o Areas to be thinned o Schedule for thinning and removal o Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.2 Fire Prevention and Control Plan Approval The wildfire hazards present on the property has been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention wildlife habitat, enhancement of water resources, and aesthetics. Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.3 & A.4 The Fire Department Fire Marshal or designee would conduct the inspection on site to ensure the plants were thinned in a sufficient manner. Maintenance Provisions for the maintenance of a required Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be recorded on the property to ensure continued maintenance. Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.A.3 & A.4 General Fuel Modification Areas - Applicability Applies to new buildings, additions, and decks increasing lot coverage by 200 sq. ft. or greater. Full extent of the property for new structures. Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.B.1 General Fuel Modification Areas - Requirements Remove all dead or dying vegetation. No new planting of plants listed on the new Prohibited Flammable Plant List Removal of Prohibited Flammable Plants No combustible materials within 5 feet of a new structure or addition, including mulch. Flammable trees (not deciduous) which are to be retained: Provide a 10-foot clearance to canopy from new building or additions. o Must be maintained to remove understory growth and clearance from the . o Allowance for an exception if pruning the tree to this extent will compromise its health. o Existing fire resistant trees to be retained: Pruned to not touch a structure. o o Allowances to preserve vegetation for erosion control, riparian and wetland preservation. Roof Material (new or 50% re-roof) to be fire resistant (Class B). Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.B.2 & B.3 The primary intent of the ordinance was to expand wildfire overlay to incorporate the entire city. Implementation Requirements Compliance with Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and General Fuel Modification standards, to be completed prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. Fire Code Official inspection and approval Ongoing Maintenance Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.C Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Adjustments to Fire Prevention Control Plan and Fuel modification requirements New flexibility to address unique on-site conditions. New Section 18.3.10.100.D and E Fire Code Official and Planning Director may waive or reduce submittal requirements or fuel modification requirements if on-site conditions are already sufficient to reduce fire risk. Written Request o Site Inspection by Fire Code Official o Evaluation of criteria o Code refs: 18.3.10.100.D Amendments to approved plans Minor Amendments Administrative o Exceptions Type 1 Planning Action o Code Refs: 18.3.10.100.E & F Physical and Environmental Constraints Tree Removal Amends regulated conifer with the definition of o Allows removal of regulated trees in hillside lands for trees removed as part of an approved Fire o Prevention and Control Plan, or as approved to implement a comprehensive general fuel modification area. Submission Requirements - Staff advisor may waive a submittal requirement if not necessary to make a decision on an application. Code Refs: 18.3.10.020.A.3, 18.3.10.040, 18.3.10.090.D Staff modified tree removal to exempt a tree if it was part of a fire prevention and control plan and required to meet fill modification areas in the wildfire ordinance. It would also exempt tree replacement mitigation requirements. Another modification changed removing and replacing a tree because it was too close to the proposed addition or structure. In terms of what was required for a plant submittal, the staff advisor could waive a submission requirement if it was unnecessary to make a decision on the application. Tree Removal Permits Amends exemption section: Newly requires a tree removal permit for o large enough to be partitioned or subdivided. Currently, lots occupied by a single family dwelling are exempt regardless of size. o The amendment addresses situations in which a site occupied by a single dwelling is cleared of o trees under the exemption, in advance of an application to subdivide or partition. Applies in R-1, R-2, R-3, and HC zoned properties. o HC zone added as Mountain Meadows is comprised of a large number of small lot single family o homes on HC zoned property. Code Refs: 18.5.7.C Alison Lerch, the fire adapted community coordinator spoke to the Wildfire Readiness and Preparedness approach. The ordinance addressed new homes and additions and would only capture a fraction of the city. The Fire Department looked at how to have wildfire reduction citywide. In addition to the ordinance, it required education and incentives. The Firewise USA Program currently had 28 individual neighborhoods involved. Fire Adapted Ashland 1. Expand the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include the entire city. Wildfire risk is citywide. The City of Ashland Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Comprehensive Plan would be amended to change the Wildfire Lands Overlay. 2. Adopt an updated Wildfire Lands Ordinance for new construction and additions that require vegetation clearance and fire-resistant landscaping. 3.Adopt a Municipal Code (Health & Sanitation Chapter) restricting new plantings of known flammable species identified on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List. 4.Increase wildfire safety through a citywide grant incentive program encouraging residents to remove known flammable plant species and implement fire resistant landscaping. The Fire Department was conducting parcel by parcel assessments of every home in city limits and expected to finish the following week. The data collected would provide information on highest hazard homes and areas. It would enable the Fire Department to apply for a Predisaster Mitigation grant through FEMA as well as others. The Predisaster Mitigation grant would provide up to $3,000,000 to help facilitate voluntary removal of flammable plant species and creating fire resistant landscaping. The grant could also go towards retrofitting existing structures and building materials. 5.Continue wildfire mitigation and risk reduction of existing buildings through the Firewise USA program. 6.Adopt wildfire building codes within city limits so new construction uses ignition resistant building materials. Prohibited Flammable Plant List Adopted into Chapter 9, Health and Sanitation. Reference in the wildfire development standards. Application City Wide To reduce the risk of damage to property and persons by the spread of fire due to highly flammable o plant material. and decks. o Fire resistant building materials and construction - State of Oregon Fire Code Amendments Building Code Amendments Fire Division Chief-Fire Marshal Ralph Sartain addressed Appendix W Building Construction. It was a code proposal that had essential ignition resistant development for homes in the wildfire risk assessment. It would make them less vulnerable to combust during wildfires. The ignition resistant construction elements would reduce the house to house ignition potential resulting in a community risk reduction. Oregon construction was already developing many wildfire risk reduction building. Changes would include a cap on gutters, under mount open exposed decking and flooring. Roofing material was already in City code. Windows were in the construction code and would not change. The Building Codes Division would review the code proposal and add it as an appendix to the 2014 Fire Code and eventually to the 2018 Fire Code appendix. The state would adopt it first then the City. Mr. Goldman spoke to the tree removal exemption in A2. An existing conifer over 18 inches could be retained and the new building or addition could be in close proximity. If it could be trimmed back to provide 10 feet of canopy spacing. However, if that clearance jeopardized the health of the tree, it could be retained. It would not provide the same level of fire protection. Smaller trees could potentially be removed. In the ordinance, A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, Site Design Review or Partitions. (3) Approval Criteria would require discretion in reviewing a subdivision by the Commission. It identified balancing with the need to preserve a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention on steep slopes. An applicant going through a hillside development would have a geotechnical engineer determine if the trees were a vital part of maintaining that slope. An applicant could also argue retaining trees to preserve wildlife habitats. It was balancing goals in terms of what the community wanted to retain. Community Development Director Bill Molnar added in regards to the approval criteria, the ultimate burden was on the applicant. Ms. Lerch, the City Conservation Specialist, a Wildfire Mitigation Commissioner and the Shooting Star Nursery Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 4 of 6 developed a list of plants for drought tolerant and pollinator-friendly gardens. It also included plants that required protection from deer. The Water Wise Landscaping website had a Firewise plant list as well. Mr. Goldman clarified all new buildings that would increase lot coverage by 200 square feet or more would have a fuel modification area within 30-feet of the new building. Submission requirements for the fire prevention and control plan pertained to performance standards subdivisions, preliminary plat of a subdivision, and site design review. Site design review required for accessory residential units was not included. They would have to make a general fuel modification requirement and would not provide a fire prevention and control plan. Planning Commission comment suggested revising the language for screening a hedge. Other comments expressed concerns regarding enforcement, Home Owner Associations (HOA) and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Another comment suggested using hardy plank or a metal gate for the last five feet of a fence that connected to a house. Division Chief-Fire Marshal Sartain spoke to fire resistant wood products that met Class B. He noted city code exceeded state requirements for roofs. Ms. Lerch described education outreach and videos that would be available. Staff would incorporate language regarding fences and revise wording in Section 2(A)3) Approval Criteria. UPDATES A.Accessory Residential Unit Standards Planning Manager Maria Harris explained currently adding an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) required planning approval, site design review, and a pre-application conference. It also required a Type I application fee, and the time and resources to put it together. The ordinance would exempt ARUs less than 500 square feet from the planning approval process if they were attached to a home or within a building. For a new residence, someone could incorporate an ARU into the design. It had to be less than 500 square feet with two parking spaces on site for the primary residence. It also needed on-street parking on one side of the street within 200 feet on either side. If it met those requirements, it could be done with a building permit. She clarified R-1 included R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and R-1-10. Due to the number of qualifiers, staff created a new section under 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit titled A. Exemptions. Suggestions from the Planning Commission resulted in A. 5 and A. 6. The exemption would not apply to the multifamily zones because on-street parking was more heavily used. Mr. Molnar added the downtown parking management study looked at parking in the early morning and end of day. They did not detect issues with parking. For 18.2.3.040 B. R-1 Zone, (2), staff removed density of developments created under the Performance In B(3), the maximum gross habitable floor area of an ARU did not come up often enough to add the language. B(6) and B(7) were the design standards staff had introduced. They were in the site design chapter. Staff moved them to this section because it was easier to read. B(7) to, outdoor living areas (e.g., balconies or decks) on the second story shall be oriented towards the interior of the Staff would clarify it further to indicate ARUs above a detached structure and add language to minimize the In 18.2.3.040(B)(C) RR Zone section, they removed (1) and (2) regarding building on lands with less than 25% slope and access to an improved city street. Hillside Development standards would address slopes that were 25% greater. If someone did an addition that was 300 square feet or less, it would not require a physical environmental constraints permit. In 18.2.3.040, E. NN Zones and F. NM Zones were added. It would allow exempt ARUs less than 500 square feet to be in those zones. The Normal Neighborhood and North Mountain plans had ARUs written in the code and adopted before Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 5 of 6 they were developed. The proposed ordinance would allow a building permit only for exempted ARUs less than 500 square feet instead of going through site design. The number of units was not locked in. It was the number of lots created through the subdivision process. The ARU standards specifically stated they were not subject to the density requirements. Commissioner Norton explained the conditions of approval for his subdivision locked in the number of units, not lots. Ms. Harris commented most of the subdivisions over the past 30 years were performance standard subdivisions. It brought up whether the community had the ability to acknowledge changing conditions and adjust policies. The community decided through the regional planning process the city would not expand boundaries and accommodate future growth within city limits instead. Mr. Molnar noted there were neighborhoods with subdivisions that were platted with a home owners association that restricted additional units through their CC&Rs. Commissioner Norton did not think the public was clear on what the ordinance would allow. They might not understand that homes with ARUs were essentially duplexes. He stressed the importance of having a public process and suggested notifying all of the Home Owner Associations in Ashland about the proposed ordinance. Ms. Harris clarified 18.2.3.040 (B) as one ARU was allowed per lot and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed two. It was an exemption from site design review and did not permit an unlimited number of ARUs. Applicants had to meet all the qualifiers under (B). For 500 square feet ARUs in historic districts, a planner reviewed the building permits with another review by the historic review board. It went through the noticing process and was appealable to the Planning Commission. The standards were the dimensional requirements of the zone. The following would not be required: A landscape plan Open space for the ARU Planting street trees A full Historic Commission review if applicable Mr. Molnar added it would go to the Historic Commission as part of an advisory. If the 500 square foot addition was part of the site review it had to meet the mandatory standards in terms of compatible materials. Ms. Harris explained it did not have to happen for a single family home. An applicant could build the same volume for a house that was allowed under the standard requirements of the zone. It did not make a difference if the new section was an ARU. A 500 square foot addition for a house in a historic district required a building permit only. It did not go through a site design review. One Commission comment suggested clarifying parking further. Ms. Harris addressed Table 18.4.3.040 Automobile Parking Space by Use. She separated the requirements for a single family dwelling into its own box and added another box for ARUs. They used the same standard used for cottage housing where one space was required for an ARU. Staff would incorporate suggested changes and take the opportunity to update typographical errors and redundant information in the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission February 27, 2018 Page 6 of 6 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 2018 ) FINDINGS, IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2017-01911, A REQUEST FOR A) CONCLUSIONS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES LOCATED) & ORDERS AT 181 A ST.) ) APPLICANT: Jorge Yant) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lots#14600 and 14900of Map 39 1E 09BAarelocated on A St.andzoned E-1, Employment. The properties are located in the Detail Site Review, Historic District and Residential overlays. 2)The project site is comprised of two lots and includes a historic building datedat 1912 that was originally constructed for the Ashland Fruit and Produce Association. The building is bordered by Oak St. on the west, A St. on the south and the railroad tracks and associated right-of-way to the north. The eastern end of the building is next to the private parking lot that is part of the development and serves the subject building. The parking lot includes 43 parking spaces. According to the application, the building is 16,225 square feet in size and according to City of Ashland maps is approximately 400 feet in length. 3)According to the City of Ashland Railroad Addition National Register Historic District Nomination, the business known as Oak Tank and Steel moved into the building in 1945. In the early 2000’s, the site was converted from the light industrial use to the A Street Marketplace whichincluded retail, food service, nightclub, light industrial and office uses.Subsequently, Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. acquired the building and converted the building to office space for their corporate offices. However, Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. moved to Medford and the property is currently vacant. 4)The original application included a request for Site Design Review approval under AMC 18.5.2 for marijuana production (indoor grow)and a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales.After the first public hearing on December 12, 2017, the applicant withdrew the application for the marijuana production use by a letter submitted on December 28, 2017.The applicantsubmitted a revised application for theConditional Use Permit for a marijuana retail useon January 29, 2018 and supplemental transportation information on February 13, 2018. 5)In the letter submitted on December28, 2017, the applicant also requested to move the second public hearing to February 13, 2018and granted a 60-day extension the 120-day review period. The extension moves the deadline for the required final decision date by the City to May 2, 2018. 6)The hearing before the Planning Commission involvesa request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales located at181 A. St.The proposal is to use the portion of the building located at 181 A St. for a marijuana retail sales use. The application describes the proposed marijuana retail use as 1,850 PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 1 square feet in size. Any marijuana-related businesses must also meet the applicable special use standards in AMC 18.2.3.190.B. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 7)The criteria for aConditional Use Permitare described in as follows. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area,the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. Ashland Municipal 8)The special use standards for Marijuana-Related Businesses are described in CodeAMC)18.2.3.190.B (as follows. PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 2 B.Marijuana-Related Businesses. 1.Marijuana-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030–Uses Allowed by Zone for zones where marijuana-related businesses are allowed. See definition of marijuana-related businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana-related businesses shall meet all of the following requirements. a.The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production, cultivation, and storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business are prohibited. b.Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. c.The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-productsshall not be placed within the business’ exterior refuse containers. d. Light and Glare.Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare tothe interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibited. e.Building Code.Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or mechanical equipment (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems) associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation. f.Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements.The following methodology shall be used for marijuana related-businesses that are required to be separated by a specific distance (i.e., marijuana production facility, marijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail outlet). For the purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another marijuana-related business, “within 1,000 feet” means a straight line measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved marijuana related-business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a proposed marijuana-related business of the same type. If any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related-business is within 1,000 feet of an approved marijuana related business of the same type, it may not be approved. For the purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms, and storerooms. g.The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or federal PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 3 enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted. Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City’s order to halt or suspend business if state or federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the business as permitted under section 18.2.3.190. h.A marijuana-related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. 2.Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale.In addition to the standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as applicable. See definition of marijuana processing and production in part 18.6. a.Marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall be located 200 feet or more from residential zones. b.Marijuana Production. i.Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per lot. ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. c.Marijuana Wholesale.A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related- businesses. 3.Marijuana Retail Sales.In addition to the standards described above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following requirements. See definition of marijuana retail sales in part 18.6. a.Location. i.Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. ii.Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i, must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones. iv.A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational marijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building if the configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 4 Administrative Rules. No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the State of Oregon (e.g., a medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one building. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related- businesses. b.Drive-up Use.The marijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use. 9)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held public hearingsonDecember 12, 2017 and February 13, 2018at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the February 13, 2018 hearing, the Planning Commission deniedthe application. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGSOF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimonyand the exhibits received.The Commissioners disclosed at the public hearing that all Commissioners had visited the site or were very familiar with the site and surrounding area. 2.2The Planning Commission received 38written commentson the planning action that are included in the record. Additionally, eight individuals provided testimony at the December 12, 2017 hearing and two individuals provided testimony at the February 13, 2018 public hearing. The minutes from the public hearings are included in the record. 2.3The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales does not meet all applicable approval criteria in AMC 18.5.4.050.A. 2.4For the reasons discussed below in this section, the Planning Commission finds that the application PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 5 does not demonstrate that the proposal satisfies the third approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit in AMC 18.5.4.050.A.3. Specifically, the application does notdemonstrate that the proposed marijuana retail use will not have agreater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the E-1 zone in terms of two of the seven factors to be considered including:b. generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets,and f. the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.Under the Ashland Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use, the applicant has the burden of producing evidence showing that the application satisfies all applicable approval criteria.In this case, the applicant has failed to meet the burden. 2.5The Conditional Use Permit approval criteria establish the target use in the E-1 zone in AMC 18.5.4.050.A.5.f as general office uses developed at an intensity of .50 floor to area ratioin the Detail Site Review overlay. The floor-area ratio or FAR is defined in AMC 18.6.1.030 as “The gross floor area of all building on a lot divided by the lot area.” In this case, the site area is 40,738 square feet. As a result, the target use of the site is a general office building that is half of the size of the siteor 20,369 square feet in size.According to the application, the existing building on the site is 16,255 square feet in size. 2.6The Planning Commission finds that the proposed marijuana retail use is projected to generate significantly more vehicle trips than the target use of general office. Thetrafficanalysis included in the applicationestimatesthat amarijuana retail salesuse creates28.2 trips for every 1,000 square feet of floor area during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, the applicant’s trafficanalysis showsa rate of 1.49 for every 1,000 square feet of office floor area during thep.m. peak hour. Therefore,a marijuana retail use generates18 times more traffic thana general officeuse of the same size based on the trip generation rates provided in the application. The revised application and February 13, 2018 trafficanalysis do not address the trip generation of the target use of general office. Using the rate for general officeof 1.49, the target use of 20,369 square feet of general office would create 30 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The proposal is to use 1,850 square feet of the existing building for a marijuana retail use which would generate 52 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The proposal is to use the remaining 14,375 square feet of the existing building for general office which would generate 21 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore,the total number of vehicle trips generated by the proposal would be 73 vehicle trips during the p.m. peakhour. In conclusion, the proposal would generate 73 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, which is more than doublethe 30 vehicle trips that the target use of 20,369 square feet of general office would generate during the p.m. peak hour. The increase in trips of the proposal over the target use is due to the number of trips generated by marijuana retail sales. Again, an 1,850 square foot space would generate 52 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a general office use of the same size, 1,850 square feet,would generateonlythreevehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. 2.7The Planning Commissionfinds that the application does notadequately address the material PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 6 effectof the additionalvehicle trips generated by the proposed marijuana retail use on intersections in the area. An intersection evaluation of A St./Oak St/ Van Ness Ave. is included in the revised application (Exhibit 12).The intersection evaluation was based on data collected on January 9, 2018 and January 10, 2018.The original application included atrip generation analysis (Exhibit 11) that concludes that the added traffic to the intersections of A St./Pioneer and A St/First would have negligible impact to the intersections. Testimony was receivedat the February 13, 2018 public hearingraisingconcerns about transportation impacts. In particular, the testimony was that the effect of additional project traffic would be greater during the spring, summer and early fall when there was increased pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle trafficduring the Oregon Shakespeare Festival with visitors traveling tonearby travelers’ accommodationsand attractions in the Railroad Addition Historic District. In addition,the testimony indicated that the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is further increased during the spring, summer and early fall when the weather is conducive to walking and bicyclingin contrast to early Januarywhen the traffic data was collected.The testimony concluded that the additional traffic from the proposed project would adversely affect traffic during the much busier times of year. The person testifyingindicated that he walked or drove in the area daily and that the A St./Oak St./ Van Ness Ave. intersection is confusing and that he has personally witnessed near accidents involving vehicles, pedestriansand cyclists.As the Commissioners indicated prior to the hearing, many of them were also familiar with the area and they knew that traffic was far more congested during the spring, summer and early fall. The Planning Commissionfound the testimony about significant congestion and greater traffic impacts during the spring, summer and fall months to be credible and that the application does not adequately respond or address the issues. The Planning Commission finds that theintersection analysis of A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. provided by the applicant wasunreliable because it is based on data collected during one of the slowest traffic times of the year in Ashland. The testimony at the public hearings also stated there was significant traffic congestion at other area intersections including the intersection of A St./Pioneer St. and A St./First St. because of existing usesof the Ashland Food Co-op and Ashland Hardware. The testimony indicated that the traffic from the proposed project would adversely affect those busy intersections. The Planning Commission found the applicant’s transportation analysis failed to adequately address the potential impacts at these nearby intersections. 2.8The Planning Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate thatthe additional vehicle trips from the proposed marijuana retail use will not have a greater adverse material effect on pedestrian and bicycle travel in the impact areacompared to the target use of general office. The application did not include an assessment or information regarding pedestrian or bicycle use or pedestrian and bicycle conflicts/accidents with vehicle traffic in the impact area. The Planning Commission finds that the sidewalk on A St. is a relatively narrow curbside sidewalk and bicycles are required to share the travel lanes with motorized vehicles. Several Commissioners noted that the Central Ashland Bike Path PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 7 ends at Sixth St. and bicyclists cannot bypass the congested area but instead must use A St. In the written comments and testimony received, the area was described as a walkable neighborhood and shopping area that residents regularlyuse and travel to and through on footand bicycle.Additionally, testimony was received indicating high volumes of all types of traffic including pedestrian and bicyclists in the impact area, especially in spring, summer and early fall.The Planning Commission finds this testimony credible. Three individuals testified aboutthe blind corners on A St., conflicts between pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic,and traffic congestionin the general area of the project at the December 12, 2017 public hearing. In addition, five written comments were received raising the a variety of transportation issues including concern regarding increased traffic in an area used by largenumbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, traffic in an area that is already congested, the inability of the area to handle traffic associated with another major business, concerns about availability of on-street parking, and a request to consider impacts on the crosswalk and pedestrian traffic at the busy intersection of A St./Oak St. The application does not provide information about pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area or how the proposal could address the reported conflicts between vehicle and pedestrianand bicycle traffic in the A St. corridor or outside of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection. 2.9The Planning Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate that additional vehicle trips from the proposed marijuana retail use will not have a greater adverse material effect the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plancompared to the target use of general office.The application does not addresswhether traffic from the proposed marijuana retail sales use will reduce transportation capacity for future permitted uses and development in the vicinity. Specifically, the application assumes the remainder of the subject building will generate relatively few trips and doesn’t clearly address the transportation system capacity in relation to development of nearby properties.The applicationalso only addresseesthe size of theexisting buildingand doesnot addressthetarget use against which impactsmust be measured. Mostof the square footage of the building on the subject property, approximately 14,000 square feet outside of the proposed marijuana retail use,is vacant. The applicant’strafficanalysisassumes a general office use butthe building could house a range of outright permitted uses such as retail and restaurants. Retail and restaurant uses typically generate more vehicle trips than general office and this range of possible uses in the remainder of the building is not discussed. The Response to Staff Report Addendum Comments Regarding Traffic by Sandow Engineering that was received on February 13, 2018 assumes a 2.73 percent growth rate in vehicle traffic based on the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan. The analysis predictsthe A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection will operate at Level of Service (LOS) B in the p.m. peak hourin 2028but as discussed above, the prediction is based on background trafficmeasured during the slowest traffic time of year (i.e., on January 9 and 10) rather than on the busier spring,summer and early fall timeperiods. The LOS analysis is not provided for A St./Pioneer St. and A St./First St.It is not clear ifthe 2.73 percent growth rate used in the analysis incorporates development of closely situated sites such as the approximately 43,000 square foot PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 8 mixed-use building that was approved at the intersection of VanNess Ave. and Water St., vacant parcels on Clear Creek Dr. as well as the future development of the approximately 15-acre parcel of railroad property to the northeast of the site.The Planning Commission finds thatthe transportation analysis does not adequately addressthe cumulative impacts of the proposal and the futuredevelopmentonthe three intersections in the impact areaor on pedestrian and bicycle travel in the area. 2.10The Planning Commission finds that the application does not clearly demonstrate that the additional traffic generated by the proposed marijuana retail use will not create a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area compared to the target use of general office. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed marijuana retail use creates significantly more trips than the target use and the application does not address the impact of the additional trips on the reported high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle travel in the area, especially in spring, summer and early fall.Additionally, testimony received reported conflicts between vehicle traffic and pedestrians and bicyclists in theA St. corridor. Outside of some suggested improvements to the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection, the application doesn’t include information on the reported conflicts or measures to address those situations. The Planning Commission finds that the application does not address the reported higher volumes of all types of traffic during the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and peak tourism season.Finally, the application does not demonstrate that the cumulative effect of the proposal and future development in the vicinityon the transportation system will not affect the future development of adjacent properties. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales located at 181 A Stin Planning Action 2017-01911is not supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall findings and conclusionsincluded above,we denythe application in Planning Action #2017-01911. March13, 2018 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2017-01911 February 13, 2018 Page 9